34 (129).
11 XII [1902, Paris].

Yesterday I sent off an article*), I don't know if it will make it into this issue of *Iskra*. Now I'm sending a note concerning No. 13 of *Revolutionary Russia*2). It seems to me necessary to make this appeal to the "Southern Revolutionary Union" (as far as I know, it consists partly of members of the Odessa Southern Group, partly of Nikolaev social-democrats): we must f o r c e our practical workers to take part in the struggle against the socialist-revolutionaries.

I'll write a note about the Bundists.3)

Chernov is coming here in a few days. He will be giving lectures here. The proposal to invite you apparently w o n ' t be accepted under the pretext of your "illegality," but actually out of an unwillingness to admit Marxists.4) I very much support Krokhmale's plan to proceed in this case as follows: the local group will organize a series (3-4) of your lectures, with an announcement stating that this is a lecturer whom for political reasons they refused to allow to teach at the "free" school, and at the same time the group will invite everyone who for the same reasons ends up on the list of "refuses5)" to contact it. This demonstration is necessary already because the Higher School is taking an openly hostile position toward us by inviting Chernov and Kachorovskii6). All its professors are partisans of *Liberation*.

What infuriates me is the history of the renewal of "Zurich sedition." This is—the devil knows what. A letter from Bobrovsky7) to Krokhmale that I read, which they turned to for assistance (they asked the same of Bauman and Galperin), shows that Boris Nikolaevich—Noskov (he is not named, but they could have had no other information) discredits our Russian affairs in every way and demoralizes the public. I convinced Krokhmale to write them advising them not to get needlessly worked up. The incident with Dobrovol'sky's telegram8) recalls the history with the cook [Shchelkoddin]. Vasiliy [E. M. Aleksandrova] and I think he should be f o r c e d to come to London or here (where he would confer with Vasiliy—E. M. Aleksandrova). I am convinced that Krokhmale, understanding well the absurdity of the Zurich plans, nonetheless decided to take advantage of them in order to create f o r h i m s e l f a small group with which he will eventually go to Russia. (He told me directly that before leaving for Russia, which he is generally thinking about—"when it becomes necessary"—he intended to travel to Switzerland, confer with Vasiliy—E. M. Aleksandrova and others, and bring them with him so as to assign each to a specific task). This passion of our best people for creating coteries of "their own" people is downright unseemly. Two reasonably serious people cannot get along side by side! After all, only by this incompatibility—that is, by Boris Nikolaevich Noskov's unwillingness to get along with Pavel Andreevich9)—can his present game be explained... I am utterly dejected by the news that Northern literature keeps lying on that side of the border. Apart from the fact that this testifies to the complete incompetence of the public (the task is not difficult at all), here I see—in connection with information I have gathered here—new proof that our Petersburg people t e n d e n t i o u s l y e m b e l l i s h in their letters here the true state of affairs. Here is what I learned from a r e l i a b l e source: The "Committee of the Workers' Organization" with Vyshibalo10) at its head not only openly withdrew from the union, but has already issued a proclamation in which it declared that in view of the intelligentsia's violation of the statute, it is breaking with the Iskrovist Committee. Furthermore, it has released (or is releasing) No. 16 of *Workers' Thought*. Rörich (N. K. [Krupskaya] knows about him), whom the Citizen—Krasnukha characterized as completely "one of ours," is working on eliminating the "split," and he is succeeding in this, and as a result of his efforts (so says the letter's author) " I s k r o v i s t  w o r k e r s '  c i r c l e s  g r a d u a l l y  a r e  j o i n i n g  t h e  C o m m i t t e e  o f  t h e  W o r k e r s '  Organization." That this resembles the truth is shown by the following words: Rörich is an Iskrovist, but he censures the lack of correctness of the arrested Iskroists toward their opponents. It is clear what kind of "unification" could be at issue here.

The Don Committee has entered into some sort of agreement with the "Union." The basis of the agreement—*Red Banner*11) and "popular" literature.

I would advise y o u to write a "persuasive" letter to Kler [Krzezhanovskii] to urge him to move as soon as possible from his remote corner and either go into an illegal position, or in any case give up working for bread and live off the organization's resources. We have no people capable of directing the work, and—in view of various undesirable tendencies being displayed by a l m o s t e v e r y o n e (unfortunately, one cannot exclude Pavel Andreevich—P. A. Krasiков either, to whom I was completely confident, and who, as I have grounds to think, is also pursuing some sort of "separate" policy), by almost all of "ours"—it is e x t r e m e l y n e c e s s a r y t h a t  K l e r  [ G . M .  a n d  Z .  P .  K r z e z h a n o v s k i i ]  s h o u l d  a c t u a l l y  b e  a t  t h e  c e n t e r .  Vasiliy [E. M. Aleksandrova] will be inclined to this, but direct pressure from our side is also important. In a month they will have access—a legal one—to all cities except the capitals. Consequently, if one abandons all concerns about earning a living, they can settle where it will be needed. Apart from all other qualities, Kler [G. M. Krzezhanovskii] has one—as a person, he is better adapted than others to become the "personal center," linking all these prickly "super-individualities." We must hurry, while the present scattering does not issue forth into "Russian sedition."

Regarding the congress, I will dispute no further, although I am not convinced by your arguments. Here it is not a matter of difference in points of view, but only in different assessments of the given situation. I look at it less optimistically, and so does Vasiliy [E. M. Aleksandrova]. But he was building his plans conditionally, dependent on the results of his trip and what he finds on the spot. Then, that is to say, we shall see.

I shake your hand.

---

*) "Autumn Results" in No. 30 of *Iskra*.

2) Article "How social-democrats 'turn' toward Populism" in No. 30 of *Iskra*.

3) Probably the article "A New 'Unprecedented' Act by *Iskra*." See note 12 to letter 30.

4) Martov is speaking of the invitation to V. I. Lenin to give a series of lectures on the agrarian question at the "Higher Russian School of Social Sciences," organized by Prof. M. M. Kovalevskii, Yu. S. Gambarov and others, in Paris. After prolonged struggle between the students and professors of the "School," Lenin's lectures nonetheless took place. See about this in the following letters of Martov No. 35, 38.

5) Refuses—rejected.

6) Kachorovskii, a Populist, statistician and economist, author of a well-known work on the Russian commune.

7) Probably V. S. Bobrovsky, one of the oldest Russian social-democrats, an Iskrovist, and later a Bolshevik and communist, who fled from Kiev prison in August 1902. Died in 1923.

8) What the incident with Dolivo-Dobrovol'skii consisted of could not be established.

9) By Pavel Andreevich, according to N. K. Krupskaya, was meant Petr Anan'evich Krasiков.

10) Vyshibalo—Tokarev—an "Economist," member of the "Petersburg Union for the Liberation of the Working Class." Here we are speaking of that declaration that was issued by the Economists in the name of the "Committee of the Workers' Organization" as a protest against an agreement concluded in July 1902 between the Petersburg Iskrovist Committee and the "Workers' Organization." Concerning this agreement, the Petersburg Committee released a proclamation in which it was reported that the organized workers of Petersburg were declaring themselves against "Economism" and "Democratism" and were joining *Iskra*. In October, under the influence of Tokarev, the "Committee of the Workers' Organization" released a leaflet declaring that henceforward the guiding organ of the "Petersburg Union of Struggle" was the "Committee of the Workers' Organization." On the split in the Petersburg organization see the note in No. 30 of *Iskra*, "The Petersburg Split."

11) *Red Banner*—continuation of *Workers' Cause*, published from November 1902 to January 1903 by the "Union of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad." Only three issues appeared.